Comparison of Self-Reported and Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported and behavioral pain assessment scales are often used interchangeably in critically ill patients due to fluctuations in mental status. The correlation between scales is not well elucidated. The purpose of this study was to describe the correlation between self-reported and behavioral pain scores in critically ill patients. METHODS: Pain was assessed using behavioral and self-reported pain assessment tools. Behavioral pain tools included Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). Self-reported pain tools included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scales. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. Patient preference regarding pain assessment method was queried. Correlation between scores was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were included: 67 patients were nondelirious and 48 patients were delirious. The overall correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral (CPOT) pain scales was poor (0.30, P = .018). In patients without delirium, a strong correlation was found between the 2 behavioral pain scales (0.94, P < .0001) and 2 self-reported pain scales (0.77, P < .0001). Self-reported pain scale (NRS) and behavioral pain scale (CPOT) were poorly correlated with each other (0.28, P = .021). In patients with delirium, there was a strong correlation between behavioral pain scales (0.86, P < .0001) and a moderate correlation between self-reported pain scales (0.69, P < .0001). There was no apparent correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral pain scales (CPOT) in patients with delirium (0.23, P = .12). Most participants preferred self-reported pain assessment. CONCLUSION: Self-reported pain scales and behavioral pain scales cannot be used interchangeably. Current validated behavioral pain scales may not accurately reflect self-reported pain in critically ill patients.

A Clinician's Guide to Dosing Analgesics, Anticonvulsants, and Psychotropic Medications in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a common complication in critical illness and has a significant impact on pharmacokinetic factors determining drug exposure, including absorption, distribution, transport, metabolism, and clearance. In this review, we provide a practical guide to drug dosing considerations in critically ill patients undergoing CRRT, focusing on the most commonly used analgesic, anticonvulsant, and psychotropic medications in the clinical care of critically ill patients. A literature search was conducted to identify articles in which drug dosing was evaluated in adult patients receiving CRRT between the years 1980 and 2020. We included articles with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses and those that described medication clearance via CRRT. A summary of the data focused on practical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles is presented, with recommendations for drug dosing of analgesics, anticonvulsants, and psychotropic medications. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies to guide drug dosing of analgesics, anticonvulsants, and psychotropic medications in critically ill patients receiving CRRT are sparse. Considering the widespread use of these medications, narrow therapeutic index of these drug classes, and risks of over- and underdosing, additional studies in patients receiving CRRT are needed to inform drug dosing.

Effects of a Clonidine Taper on Dexmedetomidine Use and Withdrawal in Adult Critically Ill Patients-A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prolonged use of dexmedetomidine has become increasingly common due to its favorable sedative and anxiolytic properties. Hypersympathetic withdrawal symptoms have been reported with abrupt discontinuation of prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions. Clonidine has been used to transition patients off dexmedetomidine infusions for ICU sedation. The objective of this study was to compare the occurrence of dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms in ICU patients transitioning to a clonidine taper versus those weaned off dexmedetomidine alone after prolonged dexmedetomidine infusion. DESIGN: This was a single-center, prospective, double cohort observational study conducted from November 2017 to December 2018. SETTING: Medical-surgical, cardiothoracic, and neurosurgical ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: We included adult ICU patients being weaned off dexmedetomidine after receiving continuous infusions for at least 3 days. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were either weaned off dexmedetomidine alone or with a clonidine taper at the discretion of the providers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of at least two dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms during a single assessment within 24 hours of dexmedetomidine discontinuation. Time on dexmedetomidine after wean initiation and difference in medication cost were also evaluated. Forty-two patients were included in this study: 15 received clonidine (Group C) and 27 weaned off dexmedetomidine alone (Group D). There was no significant difference in the incidence of two or more withdrawal symptoms between groups (73% in Group C vs 59% in Group D; p = 0.51). Patients in Group C spent less time on dexmedetomidine after wean initiation compared with patients in Group D (19 vs 42 hr; p = 0.02). An average cost savings of $1,553.47 per patient who received clonidine was observed. No adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that patients receiving clonidine were able to wean off dexmedetomidine more rapidly, with a considerable cost savings and no difference in dexmedetomidine withdrawal symptoms, compared with patients weaned off dexmedetomidine alone. Clonidine may be a safe, effective, and practical option to transition patients off prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions.

Incidence of Dexmedetomidine Withdrawal in Adult Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Study.

To determine the incidence of dexmedetomidine withdrawal in adult critically ill patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational study of patients from November 2017 to December 2018. SETTING: Medical-surgical, cardiothoracic, and neurosurgical ICUs in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients on dexmedetomidine infusions for at least 3 days. INTERVENTIONS: Indicators of withdrawal were assessed at baseline and at least daily during the dexmedetomidine wean period. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 was performed and vital signs were recorded during each assessment. Patients were considered positive for dexmedetomidine withdrawal if they had two or more of the following symptoms: positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than +1, positive Withdrawal Assessment Tool-1 assessment, tachycardia (heart rate > 90 beats/min), and hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mm Hg or mean arterial pressure > 90). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included in the study, with 64% of patients experiencing signs of dexmedetomidine withdrawal. The median time on dexmedetomidine for all patients was 9.6 days (5.8-12.7 d), and the median dose of dexmedetomidine received was 0.8 µg/kg/hr (0.5-1 µg/kg/hr). Of the patients who were positive for withdrawal, the most prevalent withdrawal symptoms observed included delirium, hypertension, and agitation (93%, 48%, and 33%, respectively). We found no correlation between chronic opioid tolerance and incidence of withdrawal symptoms. Peak dexmedetomidine doses greater than 0.8 µg/kg/hr and cumulative daily doses of dexmedetomidine greater than 12.9 µg/kg/d were associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in our study demonstrated signs that may be indicative of dexmedetomidine withdrawal. Peak and cumulative daily dexmedetomidine dose, rather than duration of therapy, may be associated with a higher incidence of withdrawal signs. Regular screening of patients on prolonged dexmedetomidine infusions is recommended to ensure safe and effective use in critically ill patients.